What can social media platforms do for human rights?

Policy decisions by companies like Facebook and Twitter affect freedom of expression globally. Civil society has constructive solutions to this problem – tech firms must continue to listen and work with us.

Flickr/Michael Coghlan. Some rights reserved.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and
Facebook have become essential to free expression in the digital age. From the
Arab Spring, to Turkey, to major electoral reform rallies in Malaysia,
we’ve seen how movements around the world have used internet-based platforms to
communicate, organize, and share critical information that impacts their lives.

It’s easy to forget that Facebook, for
example, was created as a simple tool to let college classmates get to know
each other. Now that platforms like Facebook have billions of users, the
decisions that social media companies make impact free expression on a global
scale. Indeed, many people who are new to the internet tend to confuse social
media apps with the internet itself, new research by the Mozilla Foundation confirms—a fact that has important
implications when it comes to free expression.

Social media platforms are increasingly where
people connect with other people online. As such, police and security agencies,
especially in repressive countries, often rely on social media to force people—members
of minority groups, journalists, activists, and others—to reveal their social
networks. With one password, sometimes revealed under torture, government
authorities can clamp down on entire communities. Many human rights
organizations have worked with platforms like Facebook to develop mechanisms to
ensure the safety and security of people who are arrested and detained. At
Access, our Digital Security Helpline works with platforms to help secure the
social media accounts of users when it’s necessary to protect human rights and
safeguard marginalized communities. Social media platforms have responded over
the years by developing numerous positive security enhancements.

However, these platforms don’t get it right
all of the time. For example, Twitter is without a doubt one of the most
important platforms for news and information in the 21st century. Yet this
August, Twitter revoked access to its API for the Netherlands-based Open State
Foundation, which in 2010 created Politwoops, a valuable tool that lets the
public see Tweets deleted by politicians. Before Twitter revoked access, it had
been used in 32 countries, as a way to stop politicians from spinning their
public statements after the fact. For that reason, we’ve joined a coalition of
transparency and free expression organizations from around the world in a letter calling on Twitter to turn Politwoops back on.
Without Politwoops, a politician who wants to rewrite the past can more easily
do just that. This harms free expression, which includes the right to access
information. On October 21, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey pledged
his company’s support for free expression, accountability, and transparency
while speaking at a conference for developers. His statement, which
specifically mentioned Politwoops, is a welcome development and Access will be
working with Twitter over the coming months to determine how to promote
political transparency via the platform.

Another example is Facebook, which has run
into trouble with its authentic name (or real name) policy, which requires you to
use your real name when you set up an account on Facebook.

For years, people have been harassed on
Facebook by adversaries who flag them as having “fake” identities, even when
they’re using their real names. Others using pseudonyms have had their accounts
suspended, and have been required to submit documentation to prove that their
username matches a legal ID document—even though there is currently no secure
way to encrypt the documents submitted, and we don’t know exactly what Facebook
does with the data collected. Perhaps most disturbing, some people have had the
name on their public Facebook profile changed to match the name in their
identity documents—without prior notice or consent.

These are the results of the real name
policy, which negatively impacts human rights defenders, journalists, members
of marginalized communities, activists, organizations, and others.

Through our work fighting for digital rights
across the globe, we have heard, for example, that several Vietnamese writers
and activists were flagged en masse and
disallowed from using pen names on Facebook. One activist, a mother with two
sons in prison, had been using her Facebook account primarily to campaign for
their release. Every one of these activists and writers were asked to verify
their identities. They also reported that in several cases, when they provided
documents, Facebook unilaterally altered their accounts to list their legal
names—without notifying them first. Years of important and anonymous activism
became instantly linked with people’s identities.

Anonymity is essential to the exercise of
free expression online. This has been confirmed by David Kaye, the United
Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion, who extolled
the value of anonymity in a landmark report. As Kaye observed,
“Prohibition of anonymity online interferes with the right to freedom of
expression.” This encompasses the full exercise of the right to freedom of
expression: the right to seek, receive, and impart information. Many at-risk
users rely on Facebook to fulfill all three of these important precepts.

But when people are forced to reveal their
real identity—or an adversary exposes it—their ability to exercise that right
is threatened, and in some cases, their lives are placed in danger. This risk
will become even more significant as Facebook positions itself to deliver the
world’s news. Fortunately, European law already prohibits the use of real name
policies due to data protection regulations. But the rest of the world is not
so fortunate.

For these reasons, Access joined a coalition
of rights organizations from around the world, including EFF and Human Rights
Watch, in a letter to demand that Facebook fix the
real name policy. We came up with simple, workable solutions, including that
Facebook allow pseudonyms when using your everyday name would put you in
danger; that the company require that people who file abuse reports support
their claims with evidence; and that it provide a robust appeals process for
people who are locked out of their accounts.

We know that it is possible for tech
companies to take the concerns of civil society seriously and not only respond
to reasonable requests to improve their platforms, but also to take a proactive
approach. In 2009, Russian police cracked down on civil society groups for
allegedly using pirated Microsoft software, and Microsoft employees helped with the investigations. After a
backlash from human rights groups, Microsoft altered its licenses to clearly provide its
software free of charge. Now, organizations all over the world can apply to
receive free copies of Windows, Microsoft Office, and other programs. This is
good for digital security as well. Old and/or pirated software often contains
vulnerabilities which can be exploited by governments and malicious attackers.
Legitimate software can be easily patched to improve security.

As global internet platforms seek to expand
further into our lives, we’ve seen worrying attacks on the Silicon Valley
commitment to support freedom of expression. Policy decisions by technology
companies affect expression on a mass scale—100 hours of video are uploaded to
YouTube every minute—and this can impact human rights and even place whole
communities at risk of persecution. Civil society has constructive solutions,
and tech companies are increasingly listening. All that’s required is for
social media platforms to continue to listen, and to act.

There is an acute and growing tension between the concern for safety and the protection of our freedoms. How do we handle this? Read more from the World Forum for Democracy partnership.

About the author

Brett Solomon is the
executive director of Access, an
organization that defends and extends the digital rights of users at risk
around the world. He tweets @solomonbrett.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.